Why is the price of new tonearms so high

Dear Halcro, dear Perrew, the task building a tonearm or a TT hasn't changed at all in the past 30 years. Computer "analysis" in our days is - in comparism to the period between 1985 and 1995 - cheaper by a magnitue. Frankly - your avarage computer at home today has enough capacities to be able to calculate the journey to the moon in 1969 in all needed details. We can assume it will be suitable for all needed calculations and "analysis" to design a decent TT or tonearm too.
This is not expensive.
Sorry.
Despite what the marketing alpha dogs (I too studied this and hold a master degree in marketing communications...... and feel guilty...) try to convince the public in - the needed tools for truely great design in analog playback was available before Bill Gates got rid of his pampers.
And it was always available to everyone who finished high school and had a basic understanding of mechanics and dynamics under the influence of gravity.
Again - this is all BASIC physics.
The big problem still is, that most designers do try to design "around" the "physic" thus avoiding BIG costs (doing the opposite what they are claim to do in their advertising).
A truely great turntable will always: - be very heavy, demand excellent, very precise (= expensive...) tooling of very heavy parts (platter), ask for several very expensive materials, demand for a regulated and large periphery to isolate the TT from the "building resonance".
A great tonearm will ask for high rigidy, fast transmission of energy, rigid bearings which are able to further transport the energy away from the arm, precise tooling and materials. Try to make a FR-66s (here we go again....) with its B-60 today. I had the B-60 vta base calculated from a company specilized in precision tooling in Karlsruhe - even with production lot of 150 units and the complete blue print at hand, the unit costs were still EURO 620 (which is $900 today...).
Yes Perrew - you are right.
Modern day electronics do play close to zero role in analog compared to digital, were they are at home and the integral part of the units per se.
We should all keep in mind that the retail price of top-flight audio equipment today has a lot to do with marketing politics and image. Add to this the fact that impoter and dealer do want a big share of the cake and we a close to the truth......

Dear halcro, the DaVinci is not great. It is good in todays terms, but leaves several aspects of improvement in its design (you named one of them). Syntax, Heradot, Thuchan and 2 other friends of mine here in southern Germany to use the DaVinci - always with good results.
Never with great ones.
Its nice to look at and gives good results with a very wide varity of cartridges.
Cheers,
D.

>>> ... the physics that still govern the biggest part of the design has been available for quite a while? <<<

Yes that "?" is well put.
Vibration / mechanical resonance mechanics is one of the more difficult subjects yet.
The Tacoma Bridge would be still standing too, if some years back all was truly understood.
Same applies to other architectural issues relating to earth quakes. Resonance behaviour has come to be better understood only more recently. Most ancient understanding ended with the 'pendulum'... (had no vinyl to play with :-)

Looking at Continuum in this light, they spend plenty of time with multiple regression analysis of vibration and resonance behaviour, so they say.
Before computer models, this stuff was ALL intuition plus experiment.
I don't mean you will not get 'decent' results that way --- but no 'banana' either :-).

Now you look at some old timers, REAL heavy weights (cover of 'Night Fly'...) you see where Continuum could have gotten some ideas to start with... and then added plenty of computer modelling, so they ended up with that banana :-)

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.
Some noticed that the tube resonated (too much?) and then stuffed it with balsa wood... all intuitive vibration mechanics.

A.

All else took a piece of pipe and bend it so as to get the off-set angle, put a 'compass gimble' plus a counter weight.

I agree with you Axel.
Daniel, to say the physics governing the behaviour of tonearms hasn't changed is very simplistic and slightly disappointing to hear from you 'the rationalist'.
As Axel points out, the physics governing cable structures was understood by the Romans (a removable tent structure was erected over the Colosseum) but that hasn't stopped the knowledge being 'lost' for 2000 years and when finally being re-discovered, pushed to further and further limits?
The principles of the internal combustion engine haven't changed basically in 100 years yet the progress in engine design continues.
The principles of telescopic optics has been known since the time before Galileo and its physics have not changed but the use of computer analysis, design and construction has created unimaginable lenses in tiny digital cameras.
Sorry Daniel, not only don't I agree with you in this respect, but you continue to avoid the 'acid test' of your proposition.
For all the theory behind your support of the FR64 and FR66 tonearms, you have absolutely no answers to anyone who says it sounds mediocre and coloured and highly distorted?
And all your physics will simply not make it great if it in fact is NOT?

Perrew you make a good point...

A couple of examples one being the Technics SP10 MKIII specifically Albert Porters and the Gerrard 301, a 50 plus year old design including other vintage tables.

Dear Axel, dear Halcro, - we do not need to get on terms in this discussion. If your point of view do differ from mine - fine with me.
And sorry again - the examples are off topic.
We aren't talking nano-mechanics here nor micro-optics or complex cable structures and - BTW - concrete was invented by the Romans too. They were really gifted engineers in their prime period.
My basic point is, that the design of a great (in terms of sound) TT or tonearm is - well... - simple.
Do do neither need computer nor digital equipment to design or put together either one.
These two are really fairly easy mechanical devices - where is the problem? I can not see the need for high-tech equipment nor for big sientific computers here.
Its brain we need - something apparently becoming increasingly less available in our days.
Do I need to constantly defend the FR-60 tonearms simply because Raul doesn't like their sound in his 10+ years memory ?
While other audiophiles like Thuchan, Syntax, Heradot with equally sophisticated set-up and all modern Skool tonerarms at hand do prefer their FR-tonearms and for good reason?
Ever given taht a thought - why should they prefer the FR over their other tonearms? Just to anoy other audiophiles? Get serious.

The proof?
There is onyl one possible and non-virtual proof:
Visit me - bring along the SME V, DaVinci or any Continuum together with your favourite cartridge.
Bring further with you some time.
I will set-up your prefered tonearm / cartridge combination and fine tune real fast and most likely you will hear your toy on all time new highs in terms of its sonic performance.
I won't stop till you agree that this is the best you've heard so far.
Then we will switch to the FR-66/Fr-7fx combo and you will loose all faith in modern day audio forever.
I know it - I have watched it happen several times and all with top-flight competitors.
See you here (now I am off for a weekend holiday with my family) some day !
Cheers,
D.